English in higher education in South Africa: inclusion or exclusion
MIDP symposium, Bloemfontein, 24-27 April, 2006
Vic Webb, CentRePoL, UP
1. Introduction
Since 1994, HE in SA has become almost exclusively English, even in the case of the
former HAUs (the former RAU, UFS, UP, UPotch and US) where English has
become or is becoming the main MoI, as well as the major language of research,
community service, management and administration. At the same time, African
languages are not meaningfully being developed as LoS at any SA university, despite
some universities having adopted language policies which are aimed at promoting
these languages.1
There are several factors that are responsible for the Englishification2 of SA
universities, such as:






The constitutional and educational requirements of equity, accessibility, and
redress (in HE)
The expressed preference of the government for bilingual educational
institutions (including universities) in the belief that such institutions would
facilitate national integration3
The merging of HE institutions, in particular the former RAU and Potch, who
were merged with institutions in which only English was used
The overwhelming demand from (black) students that training programmes be
taught in English (crudely expressed on a placard in a protest march at the
former RAU: “Afrikaans is kak”)
The government’s general language policy practice of English
monolingualism, particularly in light of the fact that linguistic regimes put in
place by political regimes have a strong impact on the language beliefs and
behaviour of citizens: bi- and multilingualism are clearly not strong concerns
of the South African government.
The underestimation of language management by university decision-makers,
who seemed to think that the development of language policies was enough
and that plans of policy implementation were not needed
The Englishification of HAUs in SA can be illustrated with reference to the UP.
Until the early 1990s, UP was a mainly white, almost wholly Afrikaans university,
with all functions being performed mainly in Afrikaans. Since then, UP has become
significantly black and, given the language politics of SA, increasingly English. These
developments are apparent from the following:
1
The negative perception of decisions to develop ALs as academic media is illustrated by a remark
made by a commentator from an historically English university that such an aim is “an April Fools Day
joke”.
2
A term proposed by Brink (2006) in place of the more culturally directed “Anglicisation”.
3
In the case of schools this is clear from the attempts of the Western Cape Education Department to
compel single-medium Afrikaans schools to become bilingual through court action.
1
(a) Changing student profile at UP
Table 1: Student numbers (June, 2005) by race
Black
Coloured
Indian/Asian
White
13 184 (34.25)
646 (1.7%)
1 708 (4.44%)
22 961 (59.64%)
Table 2: Increase in student numbers since 1996 by race, as %
Black
Coloured
Indian/Asian
White
250%
252%
430%
0%
Furthermore, if one compares the language profile of the University with that of the
region in which it is situated, the Tshwane metropolitan region, it is reasonably safe to
expect that the student body will soon be predominantly black:
Table 3: Comparison of the language character of UP, Tshwane metropolitan
region and the Gauteng Province (2002/2005), as %
UP
Tshwane
Gauteng
Afr/AE
43.3
21.3
14.4
English
24.7
6.5
12.5
Tswana
6.3
17.1
8.4
N. So
5.4
22.1
10.7
Sotho
4
3.96
13.1
Zulu
4
7.6
21.5
Tsonga
1.8
9.98
5.7
This table shows that, except for Sotho (generally called Southern Sotho), the
University is linguistically not representative of the demography of its feeder region,
and an increase in students who speak Tswana, Northern Sotho, Zulu and Tsonga can
be expected.
(b) The changing demand by students for English to be used as MoI:
Following on the changing student profile, there is also a changed demand for English
as MoI:
Table 4: Change in ratio of students electing for instruction in Afrikaans as
opposed to English, 1995 – 1999, 2001, 2004 and 2005 in percentage points
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2004 2005
Afrikaans 70.8 65.5 62
59.1 57.3 53
42.8 43.3
English
29.2 34.5 38
40.9 42.7 47
57.4 56.7
Source: University of Pretoria Student Data Bureau
(c) The MoI of courses taught at the University
The MoI to be used for each of the 4015 modules taught at the University is specified
in the university’s brochure for admission requirements. For the 152 undergraduate
programmes offered, 94 (61.8%) indicate that they will be taught in both Afrikaans
and English, 42 (27.2%) only in Afrikaans, and 16 (10.4%) only in English. Teaching
in “both Afrikaans and English” means, theoretically, that such programmes are either
taught in both languages in every class (dual-medium) or twice – once in Afrikaans
and once in English (parallel medium). However, given the likelihood
2


that students in a particular course are not proficient in Afrikaans
that practically all Afrikaans-speaking students are reasonably proficient in
English, and
 that lecturers are understandably loathe to duplicate courses
it is likely that students can be persuaded to be taught in one language (and to accept
study guides and reading matter in English only). If this actually happens in practice,
it would mean that the 94 programmes scheduled to be taught in dual medium
Afrikaans/English will be taught mainly in English. That would mean that 72.2% of
the programmes are taught in English, which would indicate an enormous turn-around
in MoI – from only or mainly Afrikaans, to mainly English, in a period of 10 years.
(d) The language policy implementation at the University
Despite the University’s language policy, which specifies that academic instruction be
provided in either Afrikaans or English, or in both these languages, depending on the
“demand” for training in them and depending on whether the programmes concerned
are “academically and economically feasible”, the position of Afrikaans as a LoS at
the University has deteriorated to a serious degree. One of the reasons for this is that
the University followed a strategy of supply and demand regarding the MoI issue
(“depending on the demand for training”). The University clearly totally overestimated the strength of Afrikaans (or underestimated the strength of English).
Language policy implementation was clearly not taken seriously.
Given the demographic changes in the student profile, the enormous strength of
English and the negative social meaning of Afrikaans, the demise of Afrikaans as LoS
was completely predictable. Aggravating this situation even further was the emphasis
on economic considerations: “economically feasible”.
UP has thus gradually become an “English university” despite 43% of its students
being Afrikaans-speaking.
The question my paper wishes to address is whether the Englishification of HAUs
represents the kind of inclusivity the government is expecting?
Given the popular demand for English in the student populations, and given the
negative social meaning of Afrikaans and African languages among particularly black
students, the answer to this question would seem to be yes. However, looked at from
the perspective of
 meaningful access to knowledge and skills development
 equity
 redress, and
 meaningful community service (community intellectualisation, the promotion
of diversity, and the development of national integration)
my own answer would be negative and I would argue that the Englishification of HE
actually contributes to inhibiting transformation and perpetuating inequality and
exclusivity.
In the rest of this paper I want to state my argument and discuss ways in which
meaningful inclusivity in HE can be established.
3
2. The exclusionary effect of English-only
Universities in which English is the only or the main academic language can be
regarded as exclusionary for the following reasons:
2.1 At such universities, ESL students may be excluded from developing to their full
educational potential, leading, eventually, to the non-promotion of equity and
redress
Given the linguistic skills required for access and success in HE (Cummins’ CALP),
given the fact that academic discourses are often contextually-reduced and cognitively
demanding (Cummins, 2001:67), and given that the English language knowledge of
ESL students is often still declarative by nature (rather than procedural), it is selfevident that English as MoI can exclude ESL students from developing to their full
potential.
The general inadequacy of language proficiency in ESL of SA students is welldocumented (e.g. Webb 2002a and b), and only a few examples of this will be
provided here:
(i) In a group of top Grade 11 applicants for bursaries, 33 of the 91 black
applicants’ English literacy skills lay at the level of Grade 4 to 7; and the
English literacy skills of 82.5% of a group of tertiary-qualified applicants for
training in management science stood at the level of Grade 8 or lower (Report
by Hough and Horne)
(ii) Examples of the ESL proficiency of first-year students in a formal
examination on The Verbal Communication Process at UP in June 2000:
The first four components are fundamental content of the communication
prosess because together the form the norms. Out of these norms one make
disions out of Linguistic means, text constructing and Genre and that then
forms the text. … The situasional context refers to Locality, where the verbal
communication proses takes place. … The situasion also determines the Roles
of the descoursed partisipants The use of language and linguistic forms. Also
languagevariets. … The tone and register of the text for example formal,
informal ect. And also how the resefer will interpret the speakers
communicative intent. … The situasion context places people in positions and
they entisipate the next phase. (white Afrikaans-speaking student)
Language creates the difference between the addresser and addressee when
they are not belonging from one culture and are not talking one language;
Maybe the author has not yet been developed enough to can be fluent on talking
to one language. (black Tswana-speaking student)
(iii) Examples of the ESL proficiency of some post-graduate students in
Applied Language Studies at UP:
4
English has more knowledge than all other languages is high but the Tswana
are a bit medium not more than english. Zulu is the highest in knowledge is
spoken by many South Africans.
For communicative instructions, learners in rural areas to be succesful, I
suggest the that the curriculum be culturally attuned, and also teachers be well
trained. to supply enough resources, pupils in rural areas be given a chance to
visit the bests English-medium schools in order to interact with native speakers
of English and to practice using it.
In so far as language is an independent variable in educational development,4 the
dominance of English/the use of only English as MoI is an important factor. As the
mediator in cognitive development (acquisition of knowledge, understanding and
internalising concepts, developing reasoning skills), affective development (emotional
security, self-esteem), and social development, language seriously impacts on ESL
students’ academic development and performance.
An illustration of the negative effect of ESL on student achievement is provided by
the linguistic distribution (using first language as opposed to a second language as
medium of instruction) of pass-rates in selected subjects of study at the UP in 1999:
Table 5: Percentage students per course registration who passed selected
first-year courses in 1999 at the University of Pretoria, by language used
as medium of instruction (MoI)
Statistics 110 (N = 1939)
Public Administration 110 (N = 72)
Education 110 (N = 302)
Psychology 110 (N = 1000)
Information Science 111 (N = 583)
Sociology 110 (N = 327)
Traditional Law 110 (N = 679)
Commercial Law 110 (N = 1001)
Private Law 110 (N = 634)
Physics 131 (N = 575)
% Pass
First language used Second language used
68
45
73
45
71
34
74
57
81
65
80
40
53
40
79
53
71
44
75
57
Source: University of Pretoria Student Data Bureau
The average difference between the first-language students and the second-language
students in Table 5 is 24.5%. Approaching this matter more conservatively, it would
probably be fair to suggest that ESL students are likely to perform at least 10% below
4
Though a necessary determinant of academic performance, the language factor is obviously not a
sufficient explanation for differences in students’ academic performance. In South Africa, for example,
apartheid is a self-evident central causal factor, through the inferior education it provided to black
learners, the inadequate provision of educational resources of all kinds, the isolation of black learners
from the economically and politically dominant language communities in the country (mainly English),
the disruption it engendered in schools for black learners over many years (expressed in the protest
slogan: “liberation before education”), and so on.
5
their potential. This situation is clearly unfair to ESL students and, also, constitutes an
unjust advantage for students whose primary language is English (24% of the UP
student population). As indicated in Table 6 below, 76% of the students at UP are
users of ESL (with about 28% being black users of ESL). In so far as these students
are taught in English, they are academically potentially at a disadvantage, and
language functions as an obstacle to full educational access and equity.
Table 6: Language distribution of students, 2005
Language
Afrikaans
English
African languages
French, German, Other
Undergraduate Post-grad
Total
%
12393
3979
16372
42.5
6789
2722
9511
24.7
8175
2540
10715 27.83
738
876
1614
4.2
38499
Clearly, a situation such as this may even, covertly, lead to a lowering of academic
standards.
2.2 The exclusive use of English in HE negatively affects universities’ obligation
regarding community development
Universities are not ivory-tower institutions concerned only with the production of
knowledge and its distribution among scholarly colleagues in the scientific
community. Universities must necessarily also function as organic parts of the
communities in which they are situated, and have a responsibility to engage in
interaction with these communities, thus contributing towards their intellectual
development.5 This they obviously do by training members of the communities to
deal with community issues, but they also need to contribute to the intellectualisation
of communities by sharing their knowledge with the community,6 and by involving
members of the community in the exchange of knowledge and views on issues of
mutual interest. In addition, in the case of disadvantaged communities, universities
need to contribute towards the development of communities’ sense of self-worth, selfesteem and sense of security and ability.
In the case of a university functioning in a language which is not the main language of
its community, this intellectualising, socio-psychological and cultural function of the
university cannot be performed adequately. In fact, in such cases universities
contribute towards the continued marginalisation and inferiorisation of communities.
The role of language in preventing effective communication between a university and
the community, and in service delivery, including the following:
5
This is particularly so in developing countries: universities have a serious moral obligation to
contribute to the cultural, social and economic development of societies, including, for example, the
development of the capacity to participate in high-level discourses in first-languages, produce literature
and newspapers, translate works from other languages, and so forth.
6
Practically all scientific information in SA is available only in English. Research publications are also
mainly in English (Mouton, 2005).
6
(i) The dominance of English in academia, strengthened by its social, economic
and political power and its consequent dominance in public life, trade and
industry in South Africa, has become hegemonic7 and is thus leading to the
greater marginalisation and inferiorisation of LOTE, which, in turn, means that
these languages will be used even less as MoI in schools, which will further
contribute to continued poor educational development, and thus, poor
economic performance. Ultimately it means that the current situation of
(selective) disadvantaging, marginalisation, inequality and poverty will be
maintained.8
(ii) LOTE will either not be maintained as LoS (Afrikaans) or not be promoted as
such (African languages), which will have a direct impact on community
development.
As we know, languages have important instrumental and symbolic functions
in societies, and are linked to communities’ social, cultural, psychological,
political and economic standing. A language with low social and economic
value is a reflection of its speech communities’ standing in these domains.
Like culture, linguistic factors are important for economic development in a
society since economy, ecology, culture and language are part and parcel of
the same world and cannot be divorced from one another (adapted from
Goosen, 2004). Bastardas (2002) also emphasises the interrelationship
between the development of indigenous languages and communities’
economic and cultural development, arguing that the “preservation of
linguistic diversity and the maintenance of distinct collective identities (is) a
way of avoiding the poverty and anonymity that are the destination of the
traditional subsistence ecosystem”.9 It is therefore important that Afrikaans be
maintained as LoS, and that the sociolinguistic capacity of African languages
be developed so that they come to be regarded as prestigious, high-status,
fully-fledged standard languages.
(iii) The exclusionary use of English as LoS implies the neglect of
multilingualism and diversity as natural resources
The hegemony of English and the non-development of LOTE will, ultimately,
be threatening to an important component of the country’s pluralism, its
linguistic diversity, which is said to be regarded as a national treasure.
7
Two remarks: (a) The dominance of English as such is obviously not a problem, and the value of
English is not denied. Support for the development of LOTE as MoI in HE must not be interpreted as
implying that it is considered unimportant for South African learners to acquire English to the
maximum of their potential. What is a problem is the fact that English functions hegemonically. (b)
Observations in schools (Selati, 2006) have suggested that educators, parents and learners define
education in terms of proficiency in English rather than the possession of knowledge and skills in
subject areas and the acceptance of particular values, norms and beliefs. (Learners’ main task at school
is thus considered to be to acquire English!)
8
According to the SA institute of Race Relations (2001), 23.3% of the black population had no
educational training in South Africa in 2000, 18.59% had completed some primary school and 6.9%
has completed primary school training. 48.7% of this population thus had no training at secondary
school level.
9
This view is obviously very problematic in SA, with its legacy of apartheid. However, it does contain
an element of truth and needs serious debate.
7
2.3 The exclusionary use of English as LoS is in conflict with both the constitution and
the LP for HE
The exclusionary use of English as LoS is in conflict with both the constitutional
language stipulations and South Africa’s Language Policy for Higher Education
(2002): the constitution stipulates linguistic equality and parity of esteem, commits
the government to the development of all the official languages and undertakes to
preserve the diversity of the country. The Language Policy for Higher Education
(2002) “acknowledges the current position of English and Afrikaans as the dominant
languages of instruction” (15.1)10, stipulates that “consideration should be given to the
development of other South African languages for use in instruction” (in the long
term)” (15.2), and “recognises the important role of higher education in the promotion
of multilingualism for social, cultural, intellectual and economic development” (18.2).
None of these objectives will be achieved in a situation in which English is the major
or only LoS.
3. Developing inclusive universities in SA: establishing BMUs
Given that the above arguments: that the sole (or major) use of English as LoS in SA
is exclusionary, are valid, the obvious next question is how this situation can then be
transformed; that is: How can meaningfully inclusive universities be developed?
Given, further, the SA language political realities (that SA universities are racially and
linguistically generally complexly diverse, that multilingualism is a reality that will
not go away, that it has the potential to develop into a problem, and that universities
need to learn to manage it), the obvious response to this question (how universities
can function inclusively), is that they be formally structured as BMUs. Universities
need to commit themselves to bilingualism/multilingualism as a feature of their
institutional character.
3.1 What are BMUs?
BMUs are institutions that:
(a) have a spirit and a culture of multilingualism, aim to facilitate and promote
understanding and respect between persons of different linguistic communities
and cultural backgrounds, promote knowledge of and respect for each other’s
languages, develop cross-cultural communication skills and encourage crosscultural dialogue (see Brink, 2006: for a good discussion of multilingualism).
(Note a recent comment by a UP student: that she doesn’t know Afrikaans
because she doesn’t need it.)
(b) teach in two or more languages
(c) encourage research (including publications) in and on two or more languages
(d) provide community service in two or more languages, and that
(e) are managed and administered in two or more languages.
As regards Afrikaans, the Language Policy for Higher Education states that it “acknowledges that
Afrikaans as a language of scholarship and science is a national resource”, “fully supports the retention
of Afrikaans as a medium of academic expression and communication in higher education, and is
committed to ensuring that the capacity of Afrikaans to function as such a medium is not eroded”
(15.4)
10
8
It is necessary, of course, to keep in mind that the concept “bilingual/multilingual
institution” in South Africa cannot have the same meaning as it has in the case of the
classically bilingual universities in Europe or Canada, where bilingualism is regarded
as a “university ethos” and is seen as “an educational and cultural benefit and
resource” (Brink, 2004). The classically bilingual universities of Europe and Canada
are situated in communities in which bilingualism (including knowledge of and
appreciation for the Other) is a way of life, and which provide a supportive infrastructure for operating bilingually. Furthermore, the social status of the languages of
these universities is high: English and French in Canada, French and German in
Switzerland, Finnish and Swedish in Finland and Dutch and French in Belgium. This
is not the case in South Africa. Although the South African constitution prescribes
linguistic and cultural pluralism, the South African national community is a long way
from giving meaning to this philosophy.
Establishing BMUs in SA can clearly not be handled in the same way as in northern
hemisphere countries.
3.2 The need for language planning in HE in SA
The enormous power of the market forces that support the Anglicisation (or
Englishification ) internationally and also, of course, of this country, can probably
only be checked by the proper implementation of theoretically justified language
planning. However, to date the management of the language issue in HE in SA has
been characterised by several negative features, such as:
(a) LP is not taken seriously by the managements of all the HAUs11
Until recently, the management of UP, for example, did not seem to take the language
issue seriously, showing little inclination to facilitate a public debate on the matter12
and did not seem to consider language policy development and language policy
implementation to be a complex matter, assuming, it seemed, that administrative
managers untrained in language planning are capable of handling the language issue,
and that the co-operation of language planning scholars is unnecessary.
(b) University managements do not seem to understand the complexity of linguistic
management:
Several examples from UP can be mentioned to illustrate this observation:

UP appeared to assume that
i. a language policy as such was sufficient for the maintenance of
Afrikaans as an academic language, and that a detailed plan of
implementation was unnecessary
11
With the exception of UFS, US and NWU.
In the case of UP, however, actions by Afrikaans activists in 2005 (a protest march, a memorandum
to the University management on the neglect of Afrikaans and the Englishification of academic
programmes as well as the alleged discrimination against Afrikaans students in university residences)
and the subsequent media coverage lead to a public call by the University for a national conference on
the MoI issue and the funding of bilingual universities by government.
12
9
ii. market forces would have no impact on language policy realisation
iii. administration can handle the language issue without expert assistance
 Brink (2006:) states that the most effective way to maintain Afrikaans as a
LoS is not through passing rules and regulations, but by “making friends”
 University managements sometimes reason on the basis of unsupported views,
such as:
i. that it is essential for universities to teach in English if they want their
graduates to compete internationally, to have international mobility and
to be assured of access to and participation in the international labour
market
ii. that the promotion of diversity is not possible in single-language
universities
iii. that parallel-medium universities will promote apartheid, and
iv. that the maintenance of single-medium universities somehow implies a
stance of anti-multilingualism
All four views are, of course, non-valid.
(c) Academic staff is often inadequately informed about the role of language in
academic development. At UP, for example, members of the engineering
departments argue that their first priority is to be world-class departments and
to be internationally competitive, and that (only) English will allow them to
accomplish this aim. They obviously do not understand that the language issue
can easily be an obstruction to producing internationally competitive
graduates.
Given these negative features of the language debate at HAUs it is necessary for
language planning scholars to become part of the process and to persuade university
managements that, if linguistic transformation is to take place effectively in HE, LP
needs to be taken seriously.
3.3 Linguistic transformation is a complicated process
It is, of course, necessary for university managements to realise that LP is a complex
process, in at least the following ways:
i.The interrelationship between language and society is extremely complex, being
conditioned by factors such as the following:
 Language policy implementation in SA is conducted within the framework of
social, political and economic forces which all support the dominance of
English, and is thus strongly affected by the hegemony of English (that is,
the overt or covert imposition to serve own interests through the use of
English)
 Globalisation, technologisation and the stress on being internationally
competitive, are also strong, restrictive factors13
13
An example of measures that can be taken to manage these forces and restrictive factors is the
proposal by the registrar of UP that statutorily binding commitments be made to guarantee future
students the right of studying core modules in Afrikaans. Another example comes from Spain: that in
Catalan-speaking areas the Language Policy Act obliges the Government and the universities to adopt
the measures necessary to encourage the use of the Catalan language in every sphere of teaching, nonteaching and research activities” (p. 60), and provides government support for the language services
they offer and for the publication of university textbooks. This has not happened in SA.
10
 Universities in the (post-) modern era, as Brink (2004) points out, are no
longer self-sufficient autonomous institutions, responsible only unto
themselves and their own academic beliefs. The boundaries between the
state, the private sector, industry and the civil society are becoming smaller.
 The promotion of languages (such as the ALs) as LoS, is directly related to
their social meaning (in particular their economic value) in their firstlanguage communities.14
ii. Effective LP involves the collaboration of institutional authorities and the target
communities (staff and students), that is, LP necessarily has both a top/down and a
bottom/up dimension15
iii.There are many variables that affect LP implementation (such as language
attitudes, the sociolinguistic capacity of languages, P expertise, institutional
support, and funding)
iv.Given the connection between language and identity, language is politically often
an emotional issue, as is evident from:
 The demonstrations by (black) students at UJ demanding that programmes
be provided in English, with a placard declaring: “Afrikaans is kak”, 5000
students from UP marching in support of Afrikaans to the Union Buildings
in Pretoria, and the struggle to retain Afrikaans as the major language of
learning and teaching at the University of Stellenbosch.
 the nature of the public debate at US, which is in many respects not a
rational exercise but basically appears to be a struggle for power and
control, with both sides misrepresenting the arguments and views of the
other, and using superficial and over-simplified arguments (e.g. Brink,
2006:, who argues that the call for a single-medium Afrikaans university,
is, in effect, a call for an Afrikaner institution in the cultural sense and that
it stands in opposition to diversity/multiculturalism16; and Giliomee and
Schlemmer (2006:), who warn against their opponents’ misrepresentation
of their views in the introduction of their report).
v. LP cannot be ad hoc, with unfocused actions directed at questionable or uncertain
outcomes, non-sustainable programmes, a laissez faire approach, or with
unstructured and uncontrolled measures. Language planning is a systematic,
rational, theory-based process, and must be conducted within a coherent,
integrated model such as that proposed by Donnacha (2000). It is, equally,
essential that information be collected17 about issues such as:
What are the policy options for BMUs?
Under what conditions can dual- and parallel-medium models work
effectively?
Will a dual-medium approach eventually lead to English or to assimilation to
English?
14
On the other hand, by developing these languages as LoS universities will be contributing to both
their social standing and their economic value.
15
At UP there is a lack of commitment from academic staff, particularly in the engineering
departments, to maintain Afrikaans (and, of course, to promote African languages).
16
It is possible, of course, that the movement in favour of maintaining Afrikaans as LoS, is, to some
degree driven by an agenda directed at regaining power and control by white South Africans, at
reinstating segregation in some way, or at attempting to protect any particular version of a supposed
“Afrikaner cultural identity”.
17
Note the proposed national research project on auditing universities’ sociolinguistic character/profile,
and the envisaged BMU2007 planned for March, 2007.
11
Will parallel-medium universities be too costly (since it increases the
workload of staff, and is challenging to maintain - Du Plessis, 2005:31)?
What are the best practices followed elsewhere in the world?
How can academic standards be maintained within the context of the
language issue?18
How can language and content teaching be integrated?
What are the costs involved in establishing and maintaining BMUs?
vi.LP can only achieve success if it is based on accurate information. Since there is
insufficient reliable information available about most SA universities, the first
task to undertake is to collect the required information through extensive
research19.
vii.LP can only succeed if it is accompanied by a detailed plan of implementation and
if a university body is established to manage and monitor the process (see Webb
2005b for a further discussion on developing BMUs).
4.
Conclusion
In an article in Prospect Magazine 122 (May 2006) entitled “Goodbye isiXhosa”, R.
W. Johnson, former director of the Helen Suzman Foundation and well-known
political scientist, makes the following statements:



“the use of the official languages … as languages of science and research at
university level … is so ludicrously at odds with reality that it asks for trouble”
(quoting Professor Jean-Philippe Wade, professor of culture, communication and
media studies at UKZN on the decision by the university to promote Zulu as LoS)
“they (the vice-chancellor’s plans) will turn a university of 60 000 students into
‘an academic wasteland and a global joke’”
Attempts to promote the country’s 11 official languages is just “claptrap” and it is
certain that English “is taking over completely (in SA) and will gradually
exterminate most or even all the other ten languages. And one really is talking of
extermination.”
Johnson is right, of course - if this country allows itself to be ruled by the laws of the
jungle. However, if it is serious about the values and the vision expressed in the
constitution and if the issue of multilingualism and linguistic pluralism is handled
within a justifiable framework for language planning, Johnson just might be dead
wrong.
18
For example in the case of universities who use a MoI in which staff and students may not be fully
proficient.
19
The information needed covers the language distribution among the students and the academic
and administrative staff, their proficiency levels in the relevant languages and their language attitudes,
patterns of usage, preferences; standards of language to be used; classroom practices regarding the MoI
actually used; the resources available for the implementation of the language policy: language planning
expertise, staff, funds (in particular the fact that university funding by government is partially
determined by student success rates), and commitment; the support available from parents, the
community and community-based organisations; measures to control the implementation of language
plans and the ways in which the success of their implementation is to be determined (for example by
requiring regular reports and on-site inspection).
12
References
Angelil-Carter, S. 1999. Access to success. Cape Town: UCT Press
Bastardas, Abert. 2004. Paper read at the Xth Linguapax Congress on Linguistic
Diversity, Sustainability and Peace, Barcelona, May
Brink, Chris. 2004. Language-conscious universities: Case studies. Unpublished
report. University of Stellenbosch.
Brink, Chris. 2006. No lesser place. The taaldebat at Stellenbosch. Stellenbosch:
SUN Press.
Cummins, Jim.
Department of Education. 2003. Education Report. Generalitat of Catalonia.
Du Plessis, T. 2006. From Monolingual to Bilingual Higher Education: The
repositioning of historically Afrikaans-medium universities in South Africa. In
Language Policy 5, pp. 87-113
Giliomee, H. and L. Schlemmer. 2006.
Goosen, Danie. 2004. ‘n Afrika van selfrespekterende gemeenskappe: Die FAK en die
Afrika waarvan ons droom. Die Vrye Afrikaan.
Johnson, R. W. 2006. “Goodbye isiXhosa. In an article in Prospect Magazine 122
(May 2006) entitled,
Mac Donnacha, Joe. 2000. An integrated language planning model. Language
Problems and Language Planning, 24 (1), 11-35
Ministry of Education. 2002. Language Policy for Higher education.
Mouton, Johan.
Pan South African Language Board. 2000. Summary of the findings of: A
sociolinguistic survey on language use and language interaction in South Africa.
Pretoria.
SAIRR. 2001.
Selati, M. 2006.
Statistics South Africa. 2001. Census in brief. Pretoria.
Webb, Vic N. 2002a. Using English as a second language in academic training in
tertiary institutions in South Africa: The situation at the University of Pretoria.
World Englishes 21(1): 49-62.
Webb, Vic N. 2002b. Language in South Africa: The Role of Language in National
Reconstruction, Transformation and Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Webb, Vic. 2002c. Problems with language proficiency assessment in vocational
training. Unpublished paper presented at the Canadian Association for Applied
Linguistics, Toronto, 25-28 May
Webb, Vic. 2005a. LOTE as languages of science in multingual South Africa. A case study at the
University of Pretoria. Paper presented at the conference on bi- and multilingual universities –
challenges and future prospects, University of Helsinki, 1-3 September
Webb, Vic. 2005b. Presentation to the UP Senate Committee on language policy at UP on the Helsinki
conference on bi- and multilingual universities, 11 November
13